On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <cehoyos at ag.or.at> wrote: > Rolf Ernst <rolf.ernst <at> silverlightning.org> writes: > > > let me then ask this again: There are tons of references off the official > > mplayer sites to GUI builds which include the, of course, the mplayer > build > > and they do not offer the source > > Please point me to those. > > > - are all these folks in violation? > > Possibly. > > > And if they are in violation, why would the mplayer team officially > reference > > them. > > If you mean we advertise for them, then you are correct, that is not a > smart > idea... > > *None* of the binaries linked by the mplayer site include all source. I think that answers that question. A full mplayer build includes much more than what comes off the svn. Seriously, the idea behind GPL was to make sure it wasn't commercially exploited what was destined as free to the non-commercial user and everybody benefited from improvements to code. This implies that when someone asks for the source you make it available. People have asked for source I have written in the past and I stuck it on sourceforge or emailed it after a couple of days when I got to it. I am no lawyer but it is my understanding that only the *license* must accompany the binary (unless covered by patent) and the source must be made available *upon request*. Am I mistaken? Doesn't Fraunhofer still hold the patent on the mp3 algorithm? Isn't the mpeg2 algorithm patented? Aren't both formats part of the libraries mplayer uses and could therefore itself be considered in violation? This is counter intuitive in respect to the spirit of open source. I have written open source software for many years and have considered that 'giving back'. Who would show an interest in coding for a piece of software without ever having seen it in action? Probably not the proper place to debate the merits of your position.
